Much of the left had lined up with Robin Cook, a man who said continuing with the sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children was “the best option”. Or, worse, they were cheering George Galloway, who is now busy saluting another Baathist dictator in Syria and telling the people how “lucky” they are to live under his tyranny. So one shout of ‘suicide-bomber’ was enough to send a crowd immediately into complete panic, to set men trampling over women, and make people barge children into the river Everybody is one yell away from hysteria. It proves his American loyalties and the direction of his future.It’s not that he seems wearied of power or worn down by the strains it brings Just the opposite. Should there be a referendum on proportional representation?.

It’s a society in the middle of a nervous breakdown.”

For anybody who supported the war, the images of British forces fighting against the Iraqi police in Basra – two and a half years after the war was supposed to be over – forces difficult questions like needles: is Iraq today 100,000 deaths better off than under Saddam Hussein? Is the choice now between cut-and-run, or stay and cut-cut-cut into Iraqi flesh with a monthly Fallujah or Tal Afar?

Before the war, I believed the best route through the Bush-Baathism stand-off was to find out what Iraqis preferred. Now he seems equally detached from his job.a.hamilton independent.co.uk
More from Adrian Hamilton. “The stampede a fortnight ago gives you a window into how Iraqis are coping,” a friend who has just returned from Baghdad explains “7/7 would be a light day here. It isn’t happening.Without it, the next few years can only be a heavy trudge in which the Prime Minister will be constantly at the mercy of events and of internal politicking.For years Tony Blair has seemed curiously detached from his party. Blair is not that kind of Scot.And then there are the mechanics of power.

Modern governments are not so different from mediaeval courts. They run on a bureaucracy that reads the runes of who’s in and who’s out Blair’s whole style of government is a presidential one. That has its advantage when you have a premier fully engaged. As for his legacy, well that’s for politicians like Gordon Brown, who care that their record be judged in terms of “achievement”.

He would need a major reshuffle to put his own men in key positions to buttress his position. And, abroad, he would need to succour and prepare the alliances and moves to put him at the heart of Europe, or whatever he wants. But it equally has a disadvantage once his attention wanders or weakens. Then, without cabinet government to keep the system running, the system is forced to move its attention to the alternative sources of power.If Blair really wants to stay in place for another two or even three years, then – given his style – he would have to reassert his presidential authority by launching radical new initiatives from the centre. He’s got the record that he really wants, winning three elections in a row, and has already foregone the chance of a fourth. Carrying on to beat Maggie’s record in power may be vaguely attractive, but not overwhelmingly so.

But he hasn’t done anything to stop the drift, either.All this endless comment on his concern for his legacy, his determination to find a place in history, seems to me to misunderstand the man. He’s not the sort of man to plan long or to close down his options. The Prime Minister hasn’t actually said anything or made any move that would indicate the date of his departure. There’s talk of a reshuffle, mention of David Blunkett, but no one in government thinks of it in terms any longer of Blairite versus Brownite.